Tigers should be protected until they can get a bit larger, I think. They are primarily stocked to keep brook populations down, and they can't do that if we take them out before they're big enough to do their job.
Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher Posted: 11/17/2013 8:05:34 AM Points: 42
I can see the rationale in the fact that tigers are expensive and unproductive however these are better considerations for the overall utility of stocking these hybrids in the first place.
I have heard the assertion that tigers are highly piscivorous and agressive, thus a good option for slowing down populations of so-called less desirable fish like grayling. However there are a number of highly predacious species that also would satisfy this need.
My point is simply this...like it or not...one of the most fundamental reasons for recreational angling is to harvest fish for the table, and all fisherman wheather or not they keep any fish ever, still benefit from revenue provided to agencies like the dow for this purpose....I will concede that c&r is growing by leaps and bounds and someday (perhaps), harvest of gamefish will be a thing of the past, however this is not the case today, and I would not support any regulation prohibiting all take of any one particular game fish, especially one that is an entirely unnecessary and expensive lab experiment.
It's a cool fish, a good fighter and something different then the same old RBT that's stocked a gazillion places. Do you like to catch big fish? Being sterile they grow quickly and if there was a no take policy on these fish they get to trophy size quicker than other trout. That (to me) is the best reason of all not to harvest them.
Considering they only stock the sterile hybrids in lakes that need them cause they have a big over population of smaller ussaly undisirable fish they are being used as a tool. I would rather have catch and release regs on them instead of them killing a lake all together and trying to restart it. Plus being sterile they won't over take a lake like carp, pike and lakers.
It is better to manage an overpopulated or unwanted fish population through predator stocking and management, than through killing the lake. Using sterile hybrids allows for controlled management using fish that are highly piscivorous but can't breed and cause issues of their own. I'm not trying to start an argument about the value of any fish (I love fishing for pike), but examples of fish that were used for population (or plant) control that have caused issues in some fisheries are lake trout, pike,and carp. Examples of sterile hybrids used are tiger musky, splake, wipers, and tiger trout. Tiger musky are currently managed through size limits, as are wipers in some waters.
The reason tiger trout are an important tool is due to their ability to thrive in the same waters in which brook trout thrive. Splake and muskies are not suited to smaller, high water lakes.
Since size limits are used extensively for many game fish, even harvesters have to practice catch and release in many waters: walleyes under 18" and any over 21" if a fish over 21" has been kept have to be released at Chatfield for example. I don't really see the difference in that and regulating the harvest of tiger trout.
Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher Posted: 11/18/2013 10:25:21 AM Points: 42
Just a general response: I am not at all opposed to the DOW stocking tiger trout, or using them as a management tool...as someone posted before they are one of the coolest looking fish that swim and also offer great sport, which appropriately deserves their recognition as a 'game fish.'
And as is true with all game fish they are subject to limited harvest. No species (especially ones that entire existence is at the cost of those who buy licenses, permits, passes etc.) should recieve and exemption...for the simple fact, as mentioned before, harvest of game fish this is a very important element to why many anglers contribute revenue used for the preservation of our public fisheries.
Bassackwards....that is an awesome fish, I have never seen one that big before...however that is not supportive of a catch & release only reg...it came out of a fishery that allows limited harvest, in this case a slot.
I am 100% for slots and seasons. I wish Colorado would adopt this way of keeping populations in check, I would be thrilled to see a no take policy when fish are in spawn, and slot limits for keeping fish.
I just want a shot at catching a Tiger like that one. I know that these fish are taken out of this reservoir for consumption, but remember these fish are a little more established than the ones we have. By established I mean stocked. I know they do not reproduce.
bassackwards, we agree about slots. I believe that slots and other regulations can be a very effective means to have the best of both worlds...world class fishing opportunity with the option for limited harvest.
I will say that in most places across the state, the DOW or CPW does a very good job of management, of course wildlife management is not an exact science nor will it ever be, but I am of the opinion that CO offers some of the best fresh water fishing for a wide diversity of species...albeit most of which are not native.
I live in Northern Colorado and I occasionally make it to Wyoming, I have never fished Utah and only once in my life have I fished Montana...no doubt there are many places in the west that harbor monster fish, the difference with Colorado is that there are 5 million people in the state all fishing the same waters....of course the trade off is that Colorado has much more access and more public water than does Montana, Wyo.
"Bassackwards....that is an awesome fish, I have never seen one that big before...however that is not supportive of a catch & release only reg...it came out of a fishery that allows limited harvest, in this case a slot."
Just curious how is it not supportive of C&R? If someone harvisted that fish anytime before it was caught in that picture it would not have been that big,... Thus a C&R argument is ABSOLUTELY supported by a fish that big.
I'm all for healthy debate KKF but now you are just spouting off things as a devils advocate that don't make any sense???